CAR_Public/120830.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, August 30, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 172

                             Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Barry & Budd Corrects Class Action Release
BANK OF NEW YORK: Settles Sigma Class Action in Oklahoma
BUTTERBALL LLC: Nov. 5 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
CALAMOS ASSET: Suits Over Auction Rate Preferred Shares Pending
CATAMARAN CORP: Signed MOU in June to Settle Merger-Related Suit

CLOROX CO: Judge Allows Narrowed Consumer Class Action to Proceed
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Wants to Keep Class Action in Fed. Court
CUCINA FRESCA: Recalls 24-Oz Smoked Tomato Sauce in Glass Jars
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class in Forfeiture Policy Suit Certified
FIRST SOLAR: "Smilovits" Suit Still Pending in Arizona Court

FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls Expired 10 oz. Hearts of Romaine Salad
FULTONDALE GAS: Sept. 14 Class Action Schedule Deadline Set
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Face RESPA Violations Suits
GOLDMAN SACHS: November 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GOVGUAM: Judge Denies Motion to Stay Class Action Discovery

GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Students to Appeal Class Action Denial
HERTZ GLOBAL: Briefing in "Sobel" Class Suit Completed in May
HERTZ GLOBAL: Final Hearing on "Shames" Suit Deal on Oct. 29
HERTZ GLOBAL: N.J. Court Refers "Davis" Suit to Mediation
HERTZ GLOBAL: Parties Finalize Terms of "Fun Services" Suit Deal

LES SCHWAB: Sued for Wrongful Termination of Manager
MASSACHUSETTS: Advocacy Group Issues Reports on Foster Care
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Two More Student-Athletes Join Class Action
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Defective Washing Machines
STONE MOUNTAIN, GA: Sued Over Illegal Speed Detection Devices

T-MOBILE USA: 11th Circuit Upholds Class Certification Denial
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit Appeal Pending
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Parties in Class Suit vs. TVARS in Mediation
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Awaits Final Approval of Wages Suit Settlement
VIVINT INC: Sued by Subscribers For Invasion of Privacy

WARNER CHILCOTT: To Defend Four ACTONEL-Related Suits in Canada
WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Three Antitrust Suits Over DORYX Products
WARNER CHILCOTT: Illinois Overtime Pay Suit Dismissed in June
WELLCARE HEALTH: Remains Subject to Contingencies Under Suit Deal
YELP INC: Appeal From Consolidated Class Suit Dismissal Pending


                          *********

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Barry & Budd Corrects Class Action Release
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baron and Budd Attorneys issued a revised press release regarding
a class action against Abbott Laboratories.

Baron and Budd attorneys filed a deceptive labeling class action
lawsuit on Aug. 24 against Abbott Laboratories concerning the
company's "Ensure Muscle Health" and "Ensure Clinical Strength"
products.  The lawsuit alleges that Abbott Laboratories engages in
deceptive and misleading practices in connection with the
marketing of its products and charges the company with violations
of multiple laws.  The complaint was filed on behalf of Michael J.
Otto of California and a class of similarly situated consumers
across the country who purchased Ensure Muscle Health or Ensure
Clinical Strength drinks.  Baron and Budd attorneys Roland Tellis
and Mark Pifko serve as counsel in the lawsuit.

According to the complaint, Abbott capitalizes on the fears of
mature Americans who are worried about muscle loss, promising that
drinking the products alone will "help rebuild muscle and strength
naturally lost over time."  To build consumer trust, Abbott touts
the purported health benefits of these products with invented,
pseudo-scientific terms such as "Revigor," and proclamations like,
the "#1 doctor recommended brand," the lawsuit states.  As alleged
in the lawsuit, to further establish credibility for the company's
claims, Abbot also uses phrases such as "clinical nutrition."

However, as alleged in the lawsuit, nowhere on the packaging of
the products does Abbott disclose that the products cannot help
rebuild muscle and strength in the general population of consumers
to whom the products are sold -- including in Abbott's target
market of healthy adults -- unless the products are used in
combination with a regular exercise program.  Instead, Abbott
chose to selectively omit this material information from the
labels for the Products to increase sales by inducing the general
population of consumers who will not benefit from the products to
purchase and consume them anyway, the lawsuit states.

"It's hard to imagine a more personal affront than deceiving
people about what they put in their bodies," said Baron and Budd
attorney Mark Pifko.  "A sophisticated company like Abbott should
be held accountable for knowingly confusing and misleading its
customers."

A copy of the Complaint in Otto v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case
No. 12-cv-1411 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/27/abbott.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          Mark Pifko, Esq.
          Natasha Mehta, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  mpifko@baronbudd.com
                  nmehta@baronbudd.com


BANK OF NEW YORK: Settles Sigma Class Action in Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------
Datamonitor reports that Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, or
BNY Mellon, has entered into a settlement agreement related to a
previously disclosed class action lawsuit pending in federal court
in Oklahoma and initiated by CompSource Oklahoma concerning losses
in connection with the investment of securities lending collateral
in Sigma Finance Inc.

The settlement agreement is subject to court approval.  The
company recorded an after-tax charge in the second quarter of 2012
of approximately $210 million ($350 million pre-tax) primarily
related to claims involving Sigma investments. This charge
includes in part the expected payment of $280 million settling the
Sigma-related class action.

"The Sigma settlement agreement reflects the meaningful progress
we are making in navigating the litigation environment that
affects our company and the industry overall.  We are putting this
litigation behind us, with no significant impact on our capital
position, while continuing to make headway on other matters," said
Gerald Hassell, chairman, president and CEO of BNY Mellon.

Separately, the company noted that, after a preliminary review of
the recently released Basel III rulemaking, it estimates that the
impact of the new rules will be to increase its Basel III Tier 1
common equity ratio by over 100 basis points.  The Basel III Tier
1 common equity ratio as of March 31, 2012 was 7.6%.  The expected
increase is primarily due to the estimated reduction in risk-
weighted assets related to the company's securities portfolio.


BUTTERBALL LLC: Nov. 5 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Compensation.BLR.com reports that under preliminary terms of a
settlement, Butterball, LLC, will place $4.25 million into a fund
from which lawsuit plaintiffs may make claims and receive
settlements.

Workers who filed the class action lawsuits claim that Butterball
did not pay wages for the time required to don and doff protective
gear and sanitize equipment, and it did not provide appropriate
lunch breaks.  Butterball denies the allegations.

Involved are hourly employees who worked at Butterball turkey
processing plants in Huntsville or Ozark between October 1, 2006,
and July 1, 2012.  The original suit was filed by three workers in
2008; several others followed with another action in 2010.  The
settlement estimates 24 to 25 minutes per day of additional pay
for pre- and post-shift and meal break work time for each affected
employee.

A hearing on final approval of the settlement was set for November
5.  The cases are Sheila Helmert et al. v. Butterball, LLC and
Roxie Garner et al. v. Butterball, LLC, et al.


CALAMOS ASSET: Suits Over Auction Rate Preferred Shares Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calamos Asset Management, Inc. continues to defend three class
action lawsuits over redemption of auction rate preferred shares,
according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

The Company and Calamos Advisors LLC, among others, were named as
defendants in three separate class action complaints captioned
Christopher Brown et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al.; Russell
Bourrienne et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al.; and Rutgers
Casualty Insurance Company et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al.
Each complaint related to the redemption of Auction Rate Preferred
Shares by certain Calamos closed-end funds.  In Christopher Brown
et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., the Plaintiff filed a
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United
States which was denied on June 18, 2012.

The Company and Calamos Advisors believed that these lawsuits were
without merit and defended themselves vigorously against the
allegations in the complaints.


CATAMARAN CORP: Signed MOU in June to Settle Merger-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catamaran Corporation entered into a memorandum of understanding
in June to resolve a merger-related class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

Subsequent to the end of the Company's current reporting period,
on July 2, 2012, the Company completed its previously disclosed
merger with Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc., a full-service
pharmacy benefits management (PBM).  Each share of Catalyst common
stock outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the
Merger (other than shares owned by the Company or Catalyst or any
of their respective wholly-owned subsidiaries or shares with
respect to which appraisal rights have been properly exercised)
was converted in the Merger into the right to receive 0.6606 of a
Company common share and $28.00 in cash.

On or about April 20, 2012, an alleged Catalyst stockholder, filed
a complaint (the "Litigation") in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against Catalyst, Catalyst's directors, the
Company and certain wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively "the
defendants").  The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of Catalyst stockholders and alleges that the Catalyst
directors violated their fiduciary duties in connection with their
negotiation of, and agreement to, the merger agreement and the
Merger by, among other things, agreeing to allegedly inadequate
consideration and preclusive terms.  The Company was alleged to
have aided and abetted the Catalyst directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.  The complaint sought a preliminary and
permanent injunction against the Merger and, in the alternative,
damages.  On June 25, 2012, the defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding with respect to a settlement with the
remaining parties to the action in the Court of Chancery in the
State of Delaware.  Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding,
the parties to the Litigation expect to execute a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to approval by the Delaware
Court of Chancery following notice to the Catalyst stockholders.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the settlement
will be finalized or that the Delaware Court of Chancery will
approve the settlement.  The settlement terms will provide that
the Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice against all
defendants.  Without agreeing that any of the claims in the
Litigation have merit, the defendants agreed, pursuant to the
terms of the memorandum of understanding, to make additional
disclosures which supplement the information provided in the joint
proxy statement/prospectus of the Company and Catalyst dated June
1, 2012, forming a part thereof filed with the SEC on June 1,
2012.  The settlement did not affect the amount of the merger
consideration paid to the stockholders of Catalyst in the Merger.
The Company has not recorded any contingent liability in the
consolidated financial statements relating to this matter and
cannot estimate a range of possible loss.


CLOROX CO: Judge Allows Narrowed Consumer Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that The Clorox Co
clawed away parts of a class action lawsuit claiming its cat
litter advertising was false and misleading on Aug. 24, but a
judge refused to scoop away the entire mess.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti in San Francisco dismissed some
but not all of the lawsuit by consumers of Clorox's Fresh Step
litter brand.  The lawsuit said scientific studies showed Fresh
Step wasn't preferred by cats over other litters or more effective
at cutting down odors.

A lawyer for Clorox, Kenneth Lee, declined comment.  Lawyers for
the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for comment.

The decision came amid a series of legal headaches that have
dogged Clorox over its advertising for Fresh Step, a popular brand
of cat litter which has been on the market since 1984.

The company faced two separate lawsuits in New York by rival
Church & Dwight Co Inc., the maker of litter Arm & Hammer Super
Scoop, claiming Clorox's commercials were misleading.

One set of ads depicted cats choosing a box of Fresh Step over one
with Super Scoop and stated they're "smart enough to choose the
litter with less odors."  Another set said Clorox made "scoopable
litter with carbon, which is more effective at absorbing odors
than baking soda."

Church & Dwight, whose litter uses baking soda, went so far as to
commission a laboratory to study its litter's odors compared to
Clorox's and swayed a judge in January to block one set of Clorox
commercials.

The companies have since settled, but after the judge's January
order, consumers sued.

In his decision on Aug. 24, Judge Conti dismissed the plaintiffs'
claims to the extent they were based on Clorox's statements that
cats "like" or "are smart enough to choose Fresh Step."

"But he said the lawsuit could proceed "to the extent that it is
predicated on Clorox's representations that Fresh Step is better
at eliminating odor than other baking soda-based cat litters."

The case is In re Clorox Consumer Litigation, U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, 12-cv-00280.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Wants to Keep Class Action in Fed. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that Countrywide
Financial Corp. on Aug. 24 urged a California judge to keep in
federal court a proposed class action alleging the company misled
buyers of ill-fated mortgage-backed securities, arguing the
complaint is tied to the recent bankruptcies of loan originators
Residential Funding Company LLC and GMAC Mortgage LLC.

Keeping the retooled lawsuit filed on behalf of named plaintiff
David H. Luther in federal court would affect the number of
potential class members.


CUCINA FRESCA: Recalls 24-Oz Smoked Tomato Sauce in Glass Jars
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cucina Fresca Gourmet Foods, a leading producer of natural gourmet
foods for retail and foodservice, recently conducted an audit of
its packaged goods products and found an error on the labels of 58
cases of shelf-stable 24-ounce Cucina Fresca Smoked Tomato Sauce
in glass jars, resulting in a need to recall the mislabeled
packages from select Pacific Northwest Whole Foods and Quality
Food Center locations in Oregon and Washington states (lot# 11002A
and 11002B).  The Cucina Fresca Smoked Tomato labeled jars
actually contain Cucina Fresca Tomato Vodka Sauce, which contains
milk as an ingredient.  Milk is not listed on the Cucina Fresca
Smoked Tomato label.  This may pose a serious, life-threatening
risk to buyers unaware of its inclusion, who may have an allergy
or sensitivity to milk.

A picture of the recalled products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm317083.htm

The error has not been linked to any illnesses at this time, and
no other Cucina Fresca packaged good products or refrigerated
sauces are affected.  In accordance with FDA regulations to
identify known allergens, Cucina Fresca has reported the error to
the FDA to issue a recall and will offer all consumers who
purchased the mislabeled sauce replacement product.  The product
was distributed to retail locations the end of June 2012.

With the recall, Cucina Fresca will be pulling all mislabeled
products off shelves at Whole Foods and Quality Food Center
stores, and replacing them with correctly labeled product.
Consumers who have purchased Cucina Fresca Smoked Tomato (lot
11002A or 11002B noted at the bottom of the jar) UPC code 8-84337-
00522-4 are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  Consumers with questions or concerns may contact the
company at 206-903-0825 from 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Pacific
Standard Time Monday through Friday.

"We're deeply sorry for the inconvenience to our customers," Mr.
Glaberson commented.  "We'll be implementing a more standardized
labeling procedure to avoid errors like this in the future."

                About Cucina Fresca Gourmet Foods

With roots as a mom-and-pop shop in Seattle's historic Pike Place
Market, Cucina Fresca Gourmet Foods is today a leading producer of
natural, delicious prepared foods for retail and foodservice.  Its
products -- including popular fresh pastas and sauces, and frozen
"lazy" lasagnas and macaroni and cheese entrees -- are all
handcrafted in small batches from only the freshest, highest
quality ingredients to ensure the most delicious experience.
Cucina Fresca Gourmet Foods is sold throughout grocery stores,
specialty shops and restaurants in North America.  For more
information and recipes, visit http://www.cucinafresca.com/


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class in Forfeiture Policy Suit Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal
Times, the third time was the charm for plaintiffs in a class
action against the District of Columbia over how it forfeits cash
seized by police during an arrest.  After two motions for class
certification failed to meet the proper criteria, the plaintiffs
succeeded this week on their third and, in the court's eyes, final
attempt.

Police can seize cash as part of a drug arrest, but D.C. law
requires the city to notify individuals before that money is
forfeited to the city.  The complaint, which was filed in
Washington federal court in 2009, accused the city of failing to
notify arrested individuals before forfeiture.

It's a case that could cover several thousand people, according to
the opinion that U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins released on
August 22.  Judge Wilkins granted class certification to two
groups of individuals who had cash seized during an arrest: those
who claimed they never received notification of the forfeiture and
those who claimed they were never notified while incarcerated.

The plaintiffs' push for class certification began in September
2009.  The court denied their first two motions for certification,
finding problems with the proposed class definitions. Judge
Wilkins gave them one more chance to get it right.

"We're grateful that the court gave us sufficient opportunity to
clarify the issues," said Washington solo practitioner Sean Day, a
lead co-counsel for the plaintiffs.  He is handling the case with
fellow solo practitioner Henry Escoto.

The city attorney general's office, through spokesman Ted Gest,
declined to comment.

The complaint accused the city of failing to take steps to make
sure forfeiture notices were received.  Judge Wilkins noted in his
opinion that in 2009, for instance, the city received about 2,000
unsigned mail receipts from the 3,000 asset forfeiture notices it
sent out.  He cited testimony from a police officer that officers
generally didn't follow up on mail that returned undelivered.

Without notification, the plaintiffs alleged, they were denied a
right to challenge the forfeiture in violation of their Fifth
Amendment right to due process.

Both sides now have until September 12 to file a joint proposed
schedule for the case moving forward.  Given that the case has
been held up since 2009 on the class certification issue, Judge
Wilkins wrote in his order that he "expects the parties to propose
a schedule that will move this matter apace."


FIRST SOLAR: "Smilovits" Suit Still Pending in Arizona Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc.,
et al., remains pending in Arizona, according to First Solar,
Inc.'s August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against
the Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers.  The complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between April 30, 2008, and February 28,
2012.  The complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and prospects.  The action
includes claims for damages, and an award of costs and expenses to
the putative class, including attorneys' fees.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend
this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the class action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively "Pension Schemes").  The order required the Pension
Schemes to file an amended complaint on August 17, 2012, and
defendants to file a motion to dismiss on or before
September 14, 2012.


FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls Expired 10 oz. Hearts of Romaine Salad
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Express Incorporated is voluntarily recalling a limited
quantity of expired 10 oz. Hearts of Romaine salad with the
expired Use-by Date of August 23, 2012, and a Product Code
beginning with "G222" as a precaution due to a possible health
risk from Listeria monocytogenes.

No illnesses are reported in association with the recall.  No
other Fresh Express products are being recalled.

Fresh Express customer service representatives are already
contacting retailers to confirm the product was removed from their
inventories and store shelves in accordance with standard
procedures for products that have reached their expiration date.
Customers with questions may contact their Fresh Express customer
service representative.

In an unlikely event that consumers may still have this expired
product in their refrigerators, it should not be consumed, but
discarded instead.  Consumers with questions may call the Fresh
Express Consumer Response Center at (800) 242-5472 during the
hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

The precautionary recall notification for the now-expired salad is
being issued due to an isolated incident in which a sample of a
singled package of 10 oz. Hearts of Romaine salad yielded a
positive result for Listeria monocytogenes as part of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration's random sample testing program.
Fresh Express is continuing to coordinate closely with regulatory
officials.

The limited quantity of recalled product is identified with a
Product Code beginning with "G222" and a Use-by Date of August 23,
which is located in the upper right-hand corner of the package.
In addition, the UPC Code of 71279 26102 is located on the back of
the package below the barcode.  The 10 oz. Hearts of Romaine was
distributed in limited quantities to predominantly eastern and
southeastern states.

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm316979.htm

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause foodborne
illness in a person who eats a food item contaminated with it.
Symptoms of infection may include fever, muscle aches,
gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea or diarrhea.  If it
spreads to the nervous system symptoms may include headache, stiff
neck or confusion.  The illness primarily affects pregnant women
and adults with weakened immune systems.  Most healthy adults and
children rarely become seriously ill.

Note:

The expired Fresh Express Hearts of Romaine salads being recalled
display a use-by date of August 23, 2012, with a Product Code
beginning with G222.

                                             POSSIBLE
   BRAND      PRODUCT NAME      UPC         DIST. STATES
   -----      ------------    ------        ------------
   Fresh      Hearts of       7127926102    AL, AR, FL, GA, IL,
   Express    Romaine                       IN, KY, LA, MD, MO,
                                            MS, NC, OH, PA, SC,
                                            TN, TX, VA, WV


FULTONDALE GAS: Sept. 14 Class Action Schedule Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Carter, writing for North Jefferson News, reports that a
Jefferson Circuit Court judge has denied two motions filed by the
Fultondale Gas Board in a lawsuit against them which seeks class
action status.

Judge Michael Graffeo ruled on Aug. 23 against the board in one
motion which sought more detailed information on the plaintiff's
complaint against them.  The other ruling denied the board's
procedural request during the legal procedure known as discovery
-- where each side seeks information from the other which would
help their case.

"The defendants believed we had not provided sufficient detail in
the complaint, and that the judge should force us to give more,"
plaintiff's attorney Jim Roberts said.  "The judge said we had
given plenty of detail."

In the latter motion, Judge Graffeo said that the plaintiffs could
seek certain information in the discovery procedure which
determines whether the case should have class-action status, even
though that information might also affect the merits of the
complaint itself.

"During the class-certification stage, you are allowed to conduct
discovery related to whether a class actually exists," Mr. Roberts
said.  "After that, you conduct whatever discovery needed on the
merits -- whether or not the defendant actually did what they are
accused of.  The judge allowed certain merit discovery during the
certification phase, but the defense objected after we had our toe
in the water, so to speak."

Part of the reason for Judge Graffeo's denial was that the Gas
Board is a quasi-public entity, and therefore much of the
information sought is already available to the general public
because of that status.

City attorney Charlie Waldrep was not surprised by the order.

"These are routine motions and routine orders.  The court hasn't
reached conclusion that there's a class action, nor that there is
merit to the case," Mr. Waldrep said.  "We asked that discovery be
stayed, and he said he would allow it to proceed.  In the scheme
of litigation, these are routine motions and this was a routine
order.  It's the nature of class-action litigation.

"All [cases like this] question the specificity of the complaint
or the discovery process.  A very high percentage of those motions
are denied, and you move forward.  These aren't particularly an
advantage or a disadvantage to either party.  None of the main
issues rule on the class action itself or the merits."

The lawsuit names Michael Watson and Sulphur Springs Services Inc.
as the plaintiffs, who would serve as representatives of the class
if class-action status were granted.  Suplhur Springs Services
includes John Douglas among its shareholders; Douglas is running
to unseat Fultondale Mayor Jim Lowery, who by virtue of his office
is also the superintendent of the Gas Board.

The board is accused of charging customers more than allowed by
Alabama utility regulations, which permits charging 2.5 percent
more than the rate charged to similar customers by Alagasco.

Judge Graffeo's ruling also directed the lawyers to agree to a
schedule for the next phase of the proceedings, and to submit that
schedule by Sept. 14.  If the sides cannot agree, the judge will
impose a schedule of his own, Mr. Roberts said.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Face RESPA Violations Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Genworth Financial, Inc. continues to face class
action lawsuits alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act regarding captive reinsurance arrangements,
according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

Beginning in December 2011, one of the Company's U.S. mortgage
insurance subsidiaries was named along with several other mortgage
insurance participants and mortgage lenders as a defendant in
three putative class action lawsuits alleging that certain
"captive reinsurance arrangements" were in violation of RESPA.
Six additional putative class actions, making similar allegations,
have since been filed in which the Company's mortgage insurance
subsidiary is again named as one of numerous defendants.  Those
cases are captioned as follows: McCarn, et al. v. HSB, et al.,
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California; Manners, et al, v. First Third Bank, et al., United
States District court for the Western District of Pennsylvania;
Riddle, et al. v Bank of America, et al., United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Rulison et al. v.
ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. et al., United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York; Barlee, et al. v. First
Horizon National Corp., et al., United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and Cunningham, et al. v.
M&T Bank Corp., et al., United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.  The Company says it intends to
vigorously defend these actions.

Genworth Financial Inc. is a financial security company that
provides insurance, wealth management, investment and financial
solutions to more than 15 million customers, with a presence in
more than 25 countries.  It is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia
and have approximately 6,400 employees.  It had $114.3 billion of
total assets and $16.5 billion of stockholders' equity as of
December 31, 2011.


GOLDMAN SACHS: November 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Aug. 24 issued a
statement regarding the Goldman Sachs Mortgage Pass-Through
Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 09-CV-1110-HB, ECF CASE, CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING, AND (III) MOTION FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION
EXPENSES

TO: ANY AND ALL PERSONS WHO OR WHICH PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED PUBLICLY OFFERED CERTIFICATES OF GSAMP TRUST 2006-S2 FROM
MARCH 30, 2006 THROUGH FEBRUARY 6, 2009, INCLUSIVE, AND WHO WERE
DAMAGED THEREBY.

        Class CUSIP     Class CUSIP
        A1A   362334HK3 M3    362334HP2
        A1B   362334JE5 M4    362334HQ0
        A2    362334HL1 M5    362334HR8
        A3    362334JF2 M6    362334HS6
        M1    362334HM9 M7    362334HT4
        M2    362334HN7

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, (i) of the pendency
of this action asserting claims against The Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc. and certain other defendants relating to certain mortgage-
backed securities as a class action on behalf of the persons and
entities described above, except for certain persons and entities
who are excluded from the Class by definition; and (ii) that a
settlement of the Litigation for a total of $26,612,500.00 in
cash, inclusive of fees and expenses, subject to certain potential
reductions has been proposed.  A hearing will be held on November
8, 2012 at 10 a.m., before the Honorable Harold Baer, Jr., at the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, Courtroom 23B:
(a) to determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and
adequate, and should be approved by the Court; (b) to determine
whether the Order and Final Judgment as provided for under the
Stipulation should be entered, dismissing the Litigation, on the
merits and with prejudice, and to determine whether the release by
the Class of the Released Claims against the Released Parties, as
set forth in the Stipulation, should be ordered; (c) to determine
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the net proceeds of
the Settlement is fair and reasonable and should be approved by
the Court; (d) to determine whether the Fee And Expense
Application for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation
expenses and claims administration expenses should be granted; and
(e) to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem
appropriate.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY
BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action
and Proposed Settlement, (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing, and
(III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses and Proof of Claim and Release form, you may
obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator:

Goldman Sachs Mortgage Pass-Through Litigationc/o GCGP.O. Box
35100Seattle, WA 98124-1100(888) 260-2722

Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim Form can also be
downloaded from the Web site maintained by the Claims
Administrator, http://www.GoldmanSachsRMBSLitigation.comor from
Lead Counsel's Web site, http://www.blbglaw.com

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be potentially
eligible to share in the distribution of the net Settlement Fund,
you must submit a Proof of Claim Form postmarked no later than
December 18, 2012.  If you are a member of the Class and do not
exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Litigation whether or not you make a Claim.  To
exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than October 18, 2012,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  Any
objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation and/or
the Fee And Expense Application must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than October 18, 2012, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you are a member of
the Class and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim Form, you will
not share in the Settlement Fund but you will nevertheless be
bound by the Judgment of the Court.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and
the Proof of Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:

          David L. Wales, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (866) 648-2524
          E-mail: blbg@blbglaw.com

By Order of the Court


GOVGUAM: Judge Denies Motion to Stay Class Action Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kerrigan, writing for Pacific News Center, reports that
District Court Magistrate Judge Joaquin Manibusan has denied
GovGuam's motion to "stay" discovery in Dave Davis' Class Action
lawsuit against the Guam Election Commission, and others, over the
non-binding referendum on Guam's political status.

In a decision filed on Aug. 24, Judge Manibusan concludes that:
"A stay of discovery would be unfair and prejudicial to the
Plaintiff."

The decision means that Mr. Davis' attorneys may now proceed with
their plans to subpoena dozens of prominent Guamanians who are
said to have information relating to the alleged "racial intent of
the plebiscite" or who have made "racial appeals, statements,
characterizing the plebiscite as having a racial character."

Among those who may be subpoenaed are Speaker Judi Won Pat,
Senators Ben Pangelinan and B.J. Cruz, Executive Director of the
Guam Commission on Decolonization, Edward Alvarez, and President
of Chamorro Affairs Joseph Artero-Cameron.

Judge Manibusan is the same Judge who on June 14th, recommended
dismissal of Mr. Davis' lawsuit writing that Mr. Davis had
suffered no injury and therefore the case was not "ripe" for
adjudication.

Chief Judge Francis Tydingco-Gatewood has not yet issued her
decision on whether she will accept or reject Judge Manibusan's
recommendation to dismiss the case.

Among the points made by Judge Manibusan in his Aug. 24 order
allowing discovery to go forward is: "The court notes that it is
this district's policy is to permit discovery even while a
dispositive motion [motion to dismiss] is pending."

In addition the Judge also notes on March 16 he had already issued
an order to allow for discovery.  In that March 16 Order the Judge
wrote:  "With minor changes, the court approved the parties'
stipulated timelines and thereafter issued a Scheduling Order
which set August 31, 2012, as the deadline for the Defendants'
expert disclosures, and December 21, 2012, as the discover cut-off
date."

The March 16 order also sets a date for settlement talks.

GovGuam had sought to block any discovery proceedings.

Assistant Guam Attorney General Robert Weinberg argued that
GovGuam should not be required to "engage in expensive and
burdensome discovery" until Chief Judge Francis Tydingco-Gatewood
decides whether to accept Judge Manibusan's recommendation to
dismiss.

Mr. Weinberg also makes the point that "if, as defendants
[GovGuam] anticipate, the court determines it does not have
jurisdiction, then the time, energies, and resources of the non-
parties identified by plaintiff [Davis] . . . will clearly have
been wasted."

And Mr. Weinberg argued that discovery may be unnecessary because
if Guam's District Court, or a higher Federal Court, rejects Judge
Manibusan's recommendation to dismiss and declares that Davis'
claim of injury is valid, GovGuam may want to settle the case.

But in his Aug. 24 order, Judge Manibusan responds that: "the
court can not conclude that continued discovery would be a wasted
effort because the court can not say with certainty that the
dispositive [motion to dismiss] motion will prevail. Accordingly,
the court denies the Motion in its entirety."

Mr. Davis' lawsuit was filed in Guam District Court last November.
It alleges that the Guam Election Commission has "illegally and
unconstitutionally" refused to allow registered Guam voters who do
not meet the definition of "native inhabitant" to register for the
non-binding referendum.


GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Students to Appeal Class Action Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Miller, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a group
of former students of a Christian college in eastern Ontario
claiming abuse do not have the emotional strength to pursue
individual lawsuits, their lawyer is arguing.

A judge denied certification earlier this year for their proposed
C$200-million class-action lawsuit against Grenville Christian
College and its two former headmasters and the Anglican Diocese of
Ontario, saying it isn't the preferable procedure.

But Loretta Merritt, one of the three lawyers for the plaintiffs,
said that individuals would struggle to move forward with the case
on their own and a class-action suit is the best way for them to
be heard.

"If this decision were to stand then each individual survivor
would have to come forward and say 'I want to pursue an individual
action,'" she said.

"Will those people want to launch individual actions? I don't
know.  That's one of the concerns we have and one of the reasons
why we are appealing.  We are concerned that individuals may not
have the emotional or financial wherewithal to pursue it on their
own."

Currently there are five plaintiffs, but Ms. Merritt said about
300 people have been in touch with her and her co-counsel to
pursue becoming part of the lawsuit.

"We do believe that a class action is a preferable procedure," Ms.
Merritt said.  "He did find that all the other criteria for
certification had been met."

Grenville Christian College, which was run by Anglican priests,
closed in August 2007 as allegations surfaced that psychological,
physical and sexual abuse extended to the late 1970s.

At that time, the chairman of the board of directors cited
"changing demographics, declining enrolment, and increasing
operating costs" as reasons for the closure.

The school had an elite reputation among Ontario private schools,
charging up to $35,000 annually, and listed former lieutenant
governors, a senator and a Canadian diplomat among its patrons.

The plaintiffs in the case are former students at the college,
which operated both as a junior school and residential high
school, and they alleged in the lawsuit that they were subjected
to years of abuse.

The suit claimed the school was run as a mind-control cult that
left the former students traumatized.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

The allegations prompted the Anglican Church to launch an inquiry
in 2007 into the activities of two priests who were headmasters,
Rev. Charles Farnsworth and Rev. J. Alistair Haig, in addition to
an investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police.

The OPP investigation concluded in November 2008 and no charges
were laid.  After consultations with the Crown they decided that
charges were not in the public interest.

The plaintiffs have serious claims that should be tried in court,
Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled
in May.  But a class-action lawsuit is not the way to go, he
found.

"The technique is a penny wise, pound foolish way to secure access
to justice because it will make proof of the individual members'
claims more difficult," Justice Perell said in his decision.

"In the case at bar, the expediency of framing the claim as
systemic wrongdoing would not facilitate but will impede access to
justice for the individual class members."

The lawsuit had also been filed against the Anglican Diocese of
Ontario, but Justice Perell dismissed the claim against them.

The diocese was unavailable for comment.

Lawyer Geoff Adair, who represents the defendants, said he
expected the judge's decision because of the wide range of claims
made by the plaintiffs.

"I argued for that result so I'm not surprised by the fact that it
was granted," he said.  "My reasoning was that there was such a
variety of complaints that they really didn't fit in a class
action and had to be tried individually."

Mr. Adair said that allegations varied from psychological,
physical and sexual abuse, in addition to failing to accommodate
learning disabilities and failing to promote Anglican values,
which he said would be too far-reaching for a class action
lawsuit.

Justice Perell acknowledged in his decision that there were
commonalities between this case and other cases of alleged abuse
at residential schools in former Supreme Court rulings, but that
there were too many individual issues that overwhelmed the common
issues.

Plaintiffs have argued for "systemic negligence" at the school in
their appeal, indicating that the way the school was run was in
breach of duty to the students.

The plaintiffs would have to prove that injuries were as a result
of the school's adoption of the teachings of a small Orleans,
Mass., group called the Community of Jesus, "which is a far more
difficult task than proving that he was injured because Father
Farnsworth beat him with a paddle," Justice Perell's decision
said.

Ms. Merritt said she and her co-counsel are "cautiously
optimistic" after perfecting the appeal.  They are now waiting for
the defendants to file their responding materials so that the
court can set a date for an oral hearing at the Court of Appeal,
which is expected to occur before the end of the year.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Briefing in "Sobel" Class Suit Completed in May
-------------------------------------------------------------
All briefing was completed in May 2012 on two outstanding issues
in the class action lawsuit commenced by Sobel, et al., according
to Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.'s August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

On October 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia
Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, or
"Enterprise," was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada.  The plaintiffs agreed to not pursue
claims against Enterprise initially and the case only proceeded
against Hertz.  The Sobel case purports to be a nationwide class
action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at
airports in Nevada and were separately charged airport concession
recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges.  The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
restitution of any charges found to be improper and an injunction
prohibiting Hertz from quoting or charging those airport fees that
are alleged not to be allowed by Nevada law.  The complaint also
seeks attorneys' fees and costs.  Relevant documents were
produced, depositions were taken and pre-trial motions were filed.
After the court rendered a mixed ruling on the parties' cross-
motions for summary judgment and after the Lydia Lee case was
refiled against Enterprise, the parties engaged in mediation which
resulted in a proposed settlement.  Although the court tentatively
approved the settlement in November 2010, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the proposed settlement
in May 2011.  Since that time, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification -- which the Company opposed -- and discovery
has commenced again.  A separate action is proceeding against
Enterprise, National Car Rental and Alamo.

In May 2012, all briefing was completed on the two outstanding
issues -- unjust enrichment and damages.  The briefing included
expert reports as submitted by both sides.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., is the world's largest general use
car rental brand, operating from approximately 8,300 locations in
146 countries worldwide.  Hertz is the number one airport car
rental brand in the U.S. and at 81 major airports in Europe,
operating both corporate and licensee locations in cities and
airports in North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia, Australia
and New Zealand.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Final Hearing on "Shames" Suit Deal on Oct. 29
------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has scheduled a final approval hearing on Hertz
Global Holdings, Inc.'s settlement of the class action lawsuit
styled Michael Shames et al. v. The Hertz Corporation et al., for
October 29, 2012, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company is currently a defendant in a proceeding that purports
to be a class action brought by Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow
against The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group,
Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.,
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Coast Leasing
Corp., The California Travel and Tourism Commission, and Caroline
Beteta.

Originally filed in November of 2007, the action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, and plaintiffs claim to represent a class of
individuals or entities that purchased rental car services from a
defendant at airports located in California after January 1, 2007.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants agreed to charge consumers a
2.5% tourism assessment and not to compete with respect to this
assessment, while misrepresenting that this assessment is owed by
consumers, rather than the rental car defendants, to the
California Travel and Tourism Commission, or the "CTTC."
Plaintiffs also allege that defendants agreed to pass through to
consumers a fee known as the Airport Concession Fee, which fee had
previously been required to be included in the rental car
defendants' individual base rates, without reducing their base
rates.  Based on these allegations, the amended complaint seeks
treble damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.  Plaintiffs dropped their claims
against Caroline Beteta.  Plaintiffs' claims against the rental
car defendants have been dismissed, except for the federal
antitrust claim.  In June 2010, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs'
antitrust case against the CTTC as a state agency immune from
antitrust complaint because the California Legislature foresaw the
alleged price-fixing conspiracy that was the subject of the
complaint.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition with the
Ninth Circuit seeking a rehearing and that petition was granted.
In November 2010, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its June opinion and
instead held that state action immunity was improperly invoked.
The Ninth Circuit reinstated the plaintiffs' antitrust claims and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
All proceedings in the case were stayed while the parties engage
in settlement discussions.

In May 2012, the district court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement of this action; certifying a settlement
class; certifying a class representative and lead counsel; and
providing for class notice.  The court also scheduled a final
approval hearing for October 29, 2012.  The Company has accrued
its best estimate of the ultimate cost which is not material to
its financial condition.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., is the world's largest general use
car rental brand, operating from approximately 8,300 locations in
146 countries worldwide.  Hertz is the number one airport car
rental brand in the U.S. and at 81 major airports in Europe,
operating both corporate and licensee locations in cities and
airports in North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia, Australia
and New Zealand.


HERTZ GLOBAL: N.J. Court Refers "Davis" Suit to Mediation
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
has referred the class action lawsuit captioned Davis Landscape,
Ltd. et al. v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation to mediation,
according to Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.'s August 3, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On August 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against
Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation or "HERC" in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  In November 2006,
the complaint was amended to add another plaintiff, Miguel V. Pro,
and more claims.  The Davis Landscape matter purports to be a
nationwide class action on behalf of all persons and business
entities who rented equipment from HERC and who paid a Loss Damage
Waiver, or "LDW," or an Environmental Recovery Fee, or "ERF."  The
plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and injunction prohibiting
HERC from engaging in acts with respect to the LDW and ERF charges
that violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and claim that the
charges violate the Uniform Commercial Code.  The plaintiffs also
seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages with the return
of all LDW and ERF charges paid, attorneys' fees and costs as well
as other damages.  The court has granted class certification.

In June 2012, the judge denied the Company's motion for partial
summary judgment on the Loss Damage Waiver claim and, in July
2012, the judge granted the Company's motion for partial summary
judgment on the Environmental Recovery Fee claim.  The court also
entered an order referring the case to mediation by private
consent of the parties.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., is the world's largest general use
car rental brand, operating from approximately 8,300 locations in
146 countries worldwide.  Hertz is the number one airport car
rental brand in the U.S. and at 81 major airports in Europe,
operating both corporate and licensee locations in cities and
airports in North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia, Australia
and New Zealand.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Parties Finalize Terms of "Fun Services" Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its August 3, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that parties' counsel in the
lawsuit captioned Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons
v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation are finalizing the terms of
a settlement resolving the class action suit.

On May 3, 2007, Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation was commenced in
the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas.  The case was
subsequently transferred to the District Court of Johnson County,
Kansas.  The Fun Services matter purports to be a class action on
behalf of all persons in Kansas and throughout the United States
who, on or after four years prior to the filing of the action,
were sent facsimile messages of advertising materials relating to
the availability of property, goods or services by HERC and who
did not provide express permission for sending such faxes.  The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
attorney's fees and costs.  In August 2009, the court issued an
order that stayed all activity in this litigation pending a
decision by the Kansas Supreme Court in Critchfield Physical
Therapy, Inc. v. Taranto Group, Inc., another Telephone Consumer
Protection Act case.  The Kansas Supreme Court issued its decision
in September 2011.  Thereafter, the District Court of Johnson
County lifted the stay in the Fun Services case and issued a
scheduling order that addresses class certification discovery.  In
February 2012, HERC filed a Notice of Removal with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas seeking to remove the
case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction.

In June 2012, a mediation was held.  As a result of the mediation,
the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this
class action.  A draft settlement agreement that addresses
compensation to class members, class counsel fees and the claims
process, and which would be subject to court approval, is being
finalized by the parties' counsel.

The Company says it has accrued its best estimate of the ultimate
cost which is not material to its financial condition.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., is the world's largest general use
car rental brand, operating from approximately 8,300 locations in
146 countries worldwide.  Hertz is the number one airport car
rental brand in the U.S. and at 81 major airports in Europe,
operating both corporate and licensee locations in cities and
airports in North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia, Australia
and New Zealand.


LES SCHWAB: Sued for Wrongful Termination of Manager
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Les Schwab Tire Centers fired
a longtime manager because he truthfully testified in a class
action wage complaint against it, William Soland says in a $2.8
million demand in Multnomah County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Soland v. Les Schwab Tire Centers of
Portland, Inc., et al., Case No. 1208-10725 (Ore. Cir. Ct.,
Multnomah Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/27/LesSchwab.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by;

          Charese A. Rohny, Esq.
          Jeremy M. Wolff, Esq.
          CHARESE ROHNY LAW OFFICE, LLC
          1515 SW 5th Ave. Ste 1010
          Portland, OR 97201

               - and -

          Gregory Kafoury, Esq.
          KAFOURY & MCDOUGAL
          320 SW Stark St. Ste 202
          Portland, OR 97204


MASSACHUSETTS: Advocacy Group Issues Reports on Foster Care
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Schworm and Sarah N. Mattero, writing for Boston Globe,
report that a children's advocacy group has issued a series of
scathing reports on the Massachusetts foster care system,
contending that nearly 1 in 5 children in state custody for at
least two years have suffered abuse or neglect.

The group, called Children's Rights, released the reports on
Aug. 23 as part of a federal class-action lawsuit it brought
against the state's child welfare system in 2010.

It asserts that children are mistreated at a high rate under state
care, that they often bounce from one foster home to the next, and
that they sometimes stay in the foster system for years.
Approximately 1 in 6 who are reunited with their families return
to foster care after further abuse or neglect, the group says.

In several reports submitted by child welfare specialists, the
group said the state's Department of Children and Families is
plagued by dysfunction, low staffing, and lax oversight.

"Far too many children in Massachusetts remain at risk of
maltreatment even after they enter the protection of the state's
child welfare system," said Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive
director of Children's Rights.  "These new reports further
underscore the critical need to overhaul DCF as it fails to meet
its moral and legal duty to keep kids in foster care safe from
further harm."

The Department of Children and Families defended its performance,
saying it "remains confident in our case management practices as
we work to protect children from abuse and neglect."

"We're confident in the work we're doing to protect children,"
Angelo McClain, commissioner of the Department of Children and
Families, said in an interview on Aug. 24.

The agency said it was prepared to take the case to trial, unlike
other states that Children's Rights had taken legal action
against.  It said the group's reports were not independent
assessments but part of the legal discovery process.

"We will dispute their accusations in court," Mr. McClain said.

He said the agency tries to keep children at home when possible
and steer them to family members when that is not an option.  "We
recognize it's not good for kids to come into foster care," he
said.  "We find ways to support them in their own home, and if we
have to remove them, we've been trying to place them with kin more
often."

Mr. McClain said that about 26 percent of children are placed with
kin, up from 20 percent three years ago.

Children's Rights, however, said federal data show that since 2006
Massachusetts has consistently ranked in the bottom tier of state
welfare systems on several standard measures, such as keeping
children in stable homes and finding permanent homes in a timely
manner.

The department "is failing the children it serves," one review
stated.  "Rather than providing a safe harbor for children who
have suffered abuse and neglect in their family homes, DCF too
often places children at risk of additional harm and instability,
and too often fails to provide for children's basic physical and
emotional needs."

The group also found that more than 25 percent of the time, the
agency's social workers fail to make required monthly visits to
children.  More than 25 percent of approved foster homes do not
receive required annual assessments, it said.

Among a sample of children who entered foster care between July
2009 and July 2010, more than 18 percent who were reunited with
their parents were again removed from the home because they were
abused or neglected, the group said.

The trial is scheduled to begin in January.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Two More Student-Athletes Join Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Paynter Law Firm on Aug. 24 disclosed that two additional
student-athletes joined Rock v. NCAA, a class action lawsuit filed
last month which seeks damages for students who lost scholarships
because of the NCAA's recently abandoned prohibition on multiyear
athletic scholarships.  The case also challenges the NCAA's caps
on total scholarships across all Division I, II, and III sports.
The complaint alleges that these rules constitute an unlawful
conspiracy among the NCAA member institutions to reduce the amount
of money spent on athletic scholarships.

"Claims that the NCAA and its members are concerned about student-
athlete welfare are completely inconsistent with their attempts to
limit number of available scholarships."

Division III athletes Tim Steward, a basketball player at Kean
University, and Kody Collins, a former hockey player at the
University of New England, have joined the lawsuit.  Both athletes
were awarded scholarships by their institutions, only to have them
revoked when the institutions, under pressure from the NCAA,
pulled the financial aid in order to comply with the NCAA's
absolute ban on Division III athletics-based scholarships.
Messrs. Steward and Collins were both in good academic standing at
the time their scholarships were taken away, and each incurred
additional expenses as a result of the athletic scholarship
prohibition.

The complaint alleges that while the NCAA claims its restrictions
are necessary to preserve amateurism and competitive balance, in
reality, the rules are designed to divert money from scholarships
in order to line the pockets of NCAA officials and member
institutions.

The suit was originally brought by John Rock, a former starting
quarterback at Gardner-Webb University who was stripped of his
roster spot and athletic scholarship by a new coach while away
completing a mandatory academic internship.

The named plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of
student-athletes who, like them, had their scholarships reduced or
not renewed.  "In a competitive market, Division III institutions
would make available millions of dollars in athletics-based
scholarships for student-athletes," said attorney Stuart Paynter -
- stuart@paynterlawfirm.com -- whose firm is co-counsel on the
case with the law firm of Hagens, Berman, Sobol & Shapiro.  Mr.
Paynter continued, "Claims that the NCAA and its members are
concerned about student-athlete welfare are completely
inconsistent with their attempts to limit number of available
scholarships."

The Paynter Law Firm -- http://www.paynterlawfirm.com--
represents consumers in complex commercial litigation, including
antitrust, securities law, and consumer protection litigation.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Defective Washing Machines
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Samsung sells five models of
washing machines with multiple defects, a class action claims in
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Durso v. Samsung Electronics America,
Inc., Case No. 12-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 15875 in Case No. 33-
av-00001 on Aug. 24, 2012 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/27/SamsungWashers.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
          Randee M. Matloff, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 618-0400
          E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com
                  rmatloff@nagelrice.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Kasanoff, Esq.
          157 Broad Street, Suite 321
          P.O. Box 1875
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 747-5348
          E-mail: mkasanoff@att.net


STONE MOUNTAIN, GA: Sued Over Illegal Speed Detection Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Beauregard, writing for The Champion, reports that a
Decatur attorney has filed a class-action suit against the city of
Stone Mountain alleging it illegally used speed detection devices
during a period of three months, that resulted in unlawful
arrests.

The lawsuit, which is seeking $50 million in damages, was filed
Aug. 9 by Jennifer Watts.  Ms. Watts alleges the city "knowingly"
stopped drivers even though its speed detection devices were
expired.

Additionally, the suit states that the city arrested more than 15
drivers and unlawfully collected more than $100,000 in fines and
fees.

"Before I filed the complaint I reached out to the city to see if
they wanted to discuss a settlement for the people I'm
representing but they never responded," Ms. Watts said.

During the three months that the city was using uncertified speed
detection devices, it allegedly issued more than 200 citations
that were prosecuted.

"One person I'm representing, spent 67 days in jail," Ms. Watts
said.  "He was an electrician and he lost his job and everything
and has to start over from scratch."

The suit also names Stone Mountain City Manager Barry Amos, Mayor
Patricia Wheeler and Police Chief Chancey Troutman as defendants.
Both Mr. Amos and Mayor Wheeler are being sued as defendants
acting in their official capacity as city employees but Mr.
Troutman is being sued individually as well as in his capacity as
chief of police.

"I chose to sue the chief of police because he is the head of the
police department that was responsible for recertification or
license renewal," Ms. Watts said.  "His failure to re-certify the
device is the underlying reason for the lawsuit."

Mr. Amos said he couldn't comment on the pending litigation but
that the city had referred the matter to an attorney and will be
filing a response to the suit in the next several weeks.  Mr. Amos
said the suit was being assigned a lawyer through the city's
insurance company.

According to the suit, the city was operating its speed detection
devices without proper certification from Dec. 29, 2011 until
March 27, 2012.  Ms. Watts said she learned of the city's
"negligence" when one of the plaintiffs in the suit checked the
certificate status and found the city was operating the devices
illegally and contacted her.

"Despite the certification's expiration, the City of Stone
Mountain continued to prosecute individuals, that resulted in
arrests, failure to appear and bench warrants being issued,
adjudications, probation violations, loss of real and personal
property and other civil liberties and rights violation," the suit
alleges.


T-MOBILE USA: 11th Circuit Upholds Class Certification Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that the Eleventh
Circuit on Aug. 22 upheld a lower court's refusal to certify a
class action accusing T-Mobile USA Inc. of unlawfully reactivating
lost or stolen cellphones, saying the plaintiffs failed to address
concerns over how proposed damages were to be determined.

Though the district court cited five grounds for denying class
certification, the appeals court said it was unnecessary to rule
on any issue other than the complaint's lack of a concrete
proposal or methodology to determine damages.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit Appeal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a lawsuit arising from the
destruction brought by Hurricane Katrina remains pending,
according to Tennessee Valley Authority's August 3, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In April 2006, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was added as a
defendant to a class action lawsuit brought in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi by 14
Mississippi residents allegedly injured by Hurricane Katrina.  The
plaintiffs sued seven large oil companies and an oil company trade
association, three large chemical companies and a chemical trade
association, and 31 large companies involved in the mining and/or
burning of coal, alleging that the defendants' greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions contributed to global warming and were a proximate
and direct cause of Hurricane Katrina's increased destructive
force.  Action by the United States Supreme Court in January 2011
ended this case in a manner favorable to TVA.

However, in May 2011, under a Mississippi state statute that
permits the re-filing of lawsuits that were dismissed on
procedural grounds, the plaintiffs filed another lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi against the same and additional defendants, again
alleging that the defendants' GHG emissions contributed to global
warming and were a proximate and direct cause of Hurricane
Katrina's increased destructive force.  The court dismissed the
lawsuit in March 2012 for a variety of reasons, including that the
lawsuit presented a non-justiciable political question and that
all of the claims were preempted by the Clean Air Act.  The
plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Parties in Class Suit vs. TVARS in Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the lawsuit filed by former and current participants of
the Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System are currently
proceeding with mediation, according to Tennessee Valley
Authority's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In March 2010, eight current and former participants in and
beneficiaries of the Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System
("TVARS") filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee against the six then-current
members of the TVARS Board of Directors ("TVARS Board").  The
lawsuit challenged the TVARS Board's decision to suspend the TVA
contribution requirements for 2010 through 2013, and to amend the
TVARS Rules and Regulations to (1) reduce the calculation for cost
of living adjustment ("COLA") benefits for CY 2010 through CY
2013, (2) reduce the interest crediting rate for the fixed fund
accounts, and (3) increase the eligibility age to receive COLAs
from age 55 to 60.  The plaintiffs allege that these actions
violated the TVARS Board members' fiduciary duties to the
plaintiffs (and the purported class) and the plaintiffs'
contractual rights, among other claims.  The plaintiffs sought,
among other things, unspecified damages, an order directing the
TVARS Board to rescind the amendments, and the appointment of a
seventh TVARS Board member.  Five of the six individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, while the remaining
defendant filed an answer to the complaint.  In July 2010, TVA
moved to intervene in the lawsuit in the event it was not
dismissed.  In September 2010, the district court dismissed the
breach of fiduciary duty claim against the directors without
prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint
within 14 days against TVARS and TVA but not the individual
directors.  The plaintiffs previously had voluntarily withdrawn
their constitutional claims, so the court also dismissed those
claims without prejudice.  The court dismissed with prejudice the
plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, violation of the
Internal Revenue Code, and appointment of a seventh TVARS Board
member.

In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against TVARS and TVA.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things,
violations of their constitutional rights (due process, equal
protection, and property rights), violations of the Administrative
Procedure Act, and breach of statutory duties owed to the
plaintiffs.  They seek a declaratory judgment and appropriate
relief for the alleged statutory and constitutional violations and
breaches of duty.  TVA filed its answer to the amended complaint
in December 2010.

In May 2012, the court granted the parties' joint motion to
administratively close the case subject to reopening to allow the
parties the opportunity to engage in mediation that will likely
take a significant amount of time to complete.  The parties have
agreed to a mediator and are proceeding with mediation.


TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Awaits Final Approval of Wages Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Roadhouse, Inc. is awaiting final approval of its settlement
of a class action lawsuit alleging failure to comply with
Massachusetts wage laws, according to the Company's
August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2012.

On January 19, 2011, a Massachusetts putative class action was
filed styled Jenna Crenshaw, Andrew Brickley, et al, and all
others similarly situated v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., Texas
Roadhouse Holdings, LLC, Texas Roadhouse of Everett, LLC and Texas
Roadhouse Management Corp., d/b/a Texas Roadhouse.  The complaint
is pending in the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, Civil Action Number 1:11-cv-10549.  The complaint
alleges a failure to comply with Massachusetts wage laws
specifically that the Company improperly shared pooled tips with
ineligible employees.  Currently, the Company operates nine
restaurants in the state.  The parties began mediation in late
February 2012 and on April 30, 2012, filed a Settlement Agreement
("the Agreement") seeking preliminary court approval to settle the
lawsuit.  Under the Agreement, the company agrees to pay $5.0
million, which includes payment of the plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees, payment of expenses to administer the settlement, and
individual payments to resolve the claims of servers employed in
Massachusetts restaurants from January 18, 2005, through the date
of final court approval.  The Agreement is subject to final
approval of the court.  Preliminary approval of the settlement was
granted on May 3, 2012, and a final approval hearing was set for
August 28, 2012.

As a result of the Agreement, as previously reported, the Company
has recorded a $5.0 million charge in the first quarter of 2012
which is included in general and administrative expenses in the
Company's condensed consolidated statements of income and
comprehensive income.


VIVINT INC: Sued by Subscribers For Invasion of Privacy
-------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Johansen, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons v. Vivint, Inc., a Utah
corporation, Case No. 2012-CH-30597 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.
August 9, 2012) challenges Vivint's policy and practice of using
an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice to place calls to cellular telephones, which
invades the privacy rights of recipients and violates the law.

Vivint knew or should have known that it is utilizing an automatic
telephone dialing system or a prerecorded voice to deliver calls
to numbers assigned to cellular subscribers, like the Plaintiff,
who had not provided prior express permission or invitation, Mr.
Johansen contends.  Hence, he brings the class action lawsuit
asserting claims against the Defendant under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and for common law invasion of privacy.

Mr. Johansen is a resident of Illinois.

Vivint is a Utah corporation registered to do business in
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Road
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 536-7022
          Facsimile: (636) 536-6652
          E-mail: MaxMargulis@MargulisLaw.com


WARNER CHILCOTT: To Defend Four ACTONEL-Related Suits in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company says it will defend itself
from four purported product liability class action lawsuits
pending in Canada, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in approximately 185 cases and a
potential defendant with respect to approximately 286 unfiled
claims involving a total of approximately 479 plaintiffs and
potential plaintiffs relating to the Company's bisphosphonate
prescription drug ACTONEL.  The claimants allege, among other
things, that ACTONEL caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the
jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but serious condition that involves severe
loss or destruction of the jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of
the femur.  All of the cases have been filed in either federal or
state courts in the United States.  The Company is in the initial
stages of discovery in these litigations.  The 286 unfiled claims
involve potential plaintiffs that have agreed, pursuant to a
tolling agreement, to postpone the filing of their claims against
the Company in exchange for the Company's agreement to suspend the
statutes of limitations relating to their potential claims.  In
addition, the Company is aware of four purported product liability
class actions that were brought against the Company in provincial
courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that ACTONEL caused
the plaintiffs and the proposed class members who ingested ACTONEL
to suffer atypical fractures or other side effects.  It is
expected that these plaintiffs will seek class certification.  The
Company is reviewing these lawsuits and potential claims and
intends to defend these claims vigorously.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Three Antitrust Suits Over DORYX Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company is facing three antitrust
class action lawsuits related to its DORYX products, according to
the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In July 2012, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed a complaint against
the Company and Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
alleging that the Company and Mayne prevented or delayed Mylan's
generic competition to the Company's DORYX products in violation
of U.S. federal antitrust laws and tortiously interfered with
Mylan's prospective economic relationships under Pennsylvania
state law. In the complaint, Mylan seeks unspecified treble and
punitive damages and attorney's fees.

Following the filing of Mylan's complaint, three class actions
were filed against the Company and Mayne by and on behalf of
parties who allege that they paid higher prices for the Company's
DORYX products as a result of the Company's and Mayne's actions
preventing or delaying generic competition in violation of U.S.
federal antitrust laws.  These lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and
seek unspecified treble damages and attorney's fees.

The Company says it is currently reviewing each of these
complaints and intends to vigorously defend its rights in the
litigations.  However, it is impossible to predict with certainty
the outcome of any litigation, and the Company can offer no
assurance as to when the lawsuits will be decided, whether the
Company will be successful in its defense and whether any
additional similar lawsuits will be filed.  If these claims are
successful such claims could adversely affect the Company and
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, results of operation and cash flows.  These
proceedings are in the early stages of litigation, and an estimate
of the potential loss, or range of loss, if any, to the Company
relating to these proceedings is not possible at this time.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Illinois Overtime Pay Suit Dismissed in June
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law was dismissed in June 2012, according to Warner Chilcott
Public Limited Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2012.

In August 2010, the Company was served with a complaint in a class
and collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  In January
2012, the Company was served with a complaint in a class action
brought under the New York Minimum Wage Act and filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  These lawsuits were brought by former pharmaceutical sales
representatives of the Company, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated sales representatives, and allege that the
Company improperly categorized its pharmaceutical sales
representatives as "exempt" rather than "non-exempt" employees and
as a result, wrongfully denied them overtime compensation.
Plaintiffs have sought injunctive relief as well as damages for
unpaid overtime, including back pay, liquidated damages,
penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees.  As a result of the
recent Supreme Court decision in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham
Corp., the Illinois action was dismissed with prejudice in June
2012.

The New York action remains ongoing, and the Company believes it
has meritorious defenses and intends to defend this action
vigorously.  This case is in the early stages of litigation, and
an estimate of the potential loss, or range of loss, if any, to
the Company relating to this proceeding is not possible at this
time.


WELLCARE HEALTH: Remains Subject to Contingencies Under Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. disclosed in its August 3, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it remains subject to two
contingencies with respect to its settlement of a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit.

In December 2010, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation Agreement") with the
lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action
Eastwood Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Farha, et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-
1940-VMC-EAJ.  The Stipulation Agreement included two
contingencies to which WellCare remains subject.  First, it
provides that if, within three years following the date of the
settlement agreement, the Company is acquired or otherwise
experience a change in control at a share price of $30.00 or more,
the Company will pay to the class an additional $25,000,000.
Second, the Stipulation Agreement provides that the Company will
pay to the class 25% of any sums the Company recovers from Todd
Farha, Paul Behrens and/or Thaddeus Bereday as a result of claims
arising from the same facts and circumstances that gave rise to
the consolidated securities class action.


YELP INC: Appeal From Consolidated Class Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action
lawsuit against Yelp Inc. remains pending, according to the
Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In February and March 2010, the Company was sued in two putative
class actions on behalf of local businesses asserting various
causes of action based on claims that the Company manipulated the
ratings and reviews on its platform to coerce local businesses to
buy its advertising products.  These cases were subsequently
consolidated in an action asserting claims for violation of the
California Business & Professions Code, extortion and attempted
extortion based on the conduct they allege and seeking monetary
relief in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief.  In October
2011, the court dismissed this action with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, but the appeal has not yet been heard.  Due to the
preliminary nature of this potential appeal, the Company is unable
to reasonably estimate either the probability of incurring a loss
or an estimated range of such loss, if any, from an appeal.


                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *